Litigants Must Not Suffer For Counsel's Negligence: Delhi High Court Restores Suit

Emphasizing that parties should not suffer for the mistakes of their advocates, the Delhi High Court has held that a bona fide litigant cannot be penalized for the oversight or negligence of counsel, particularly when an error apparent on the face of the record exists. Justice Tejas Karia, presiding as a single-judge bench, set aside a Trial Court's order that had dismissed a review petition on the grounds of limitation, emphasizing that substantial justice must prevail over technicalities.

The matter came before the High Court through a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, challenging an order of the District Judge (Commercial Court), Shahdara. The Trial Court had previously rejected the petitioner's plaint for alleged non-compliance with the mandatory pre-institution mediation requirements under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and subsequently refused to condone a 390-day delay in filing a review petition against that rejection.

Court Rejects Hyper-Technical Approach to Condonation of Delay

The High Court observed that while dealing with applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, courts must adopt a liberal approach rather than a hyper-technical one. The petitioner had demonstrated that the delay was caused by the time taken to retrieve a 'Non-Starter Report' from their previous counsel and the ill health of a partner.

Justice Karia noted that the 'Non-Starter Report' which proved that the petitioner had indeed attempted mediation was already on the Trial Court's record at the time the plaint was rejected. The failure of the erstwhile counsel to point this out led to the erroneous rejection of the suit.

Rationale on Counsel's Negligence and Judicial Errors

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "From the present facts and circumstances, it appears that the erstwhile counsel for the Petitioner was not diligent in pursuing the matter before the learned Trial Court. Despite the Non-Starter Report being available on record, the erstwhile counsel failed to bring the same to the attention of the learned Trial Court. A bona fide litigant ought not to be made to suffer for the negligence of its counsel. In these facts and circumstances, the learned Trial Court ought to have allowed the Application seeking Condonation of Delay filed along with the Review Petition and ought to have allowed the Review Petition as well, particularly when an error apparent on the face of the record had been specifically brought to its attention during the review proceedings."

The Court further clarified the scope of review under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, stating that an error apparent on the face of the record is one that strikes on a mere perusal without a long-drawn process of reasoning.

Background:

The petitioner, Super Agencies, had filed a commercial suit for recovery of over ₹94 lakhs against Ravindra Brothers. The suit, originally filed under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was later converted into an ordinary suit and transferred to a Commercial Court. In December 2022, the Trial Court rejected the plaint citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Patil Automation (P) Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers (P) Ltd., believing the petitioner failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

However, the petitioner had actually initiated pre-institution mediation in 2019, but their previous counsel failed to highlight the Non-Starter Report filed with the suit. When the petitioner discovered this, they filed a review petition with a delay of 390 days. The Trial Court dismissed the delay condonation application, leading to the present challenge. The High Court ultimately found that since the mediation report was already on record, the original rejection was a factual error that necessitated correction through review.

Case Details:
Case No.: CM(M) 82/2025
Case Title: SUPER AGENCIES v. RAVINDRA BROTHERS
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ronak Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 369